Hot Topics:

User Profile: K Chad Roberts

Comments

“Your sexual proclivity is not, and NEVER has been the same as race. Give that silly nonsensical comparison up. I don’t know if any former people of color, do you?”

I know OF a couple people like that, but you’re totally right. Gay relationships aren’t very relatable to race, rather they’re more relatable to the sodomy laws, or laws limiting the number of female pleasure toys.

Laws regarding these types of personal practices are stupid, and I’m sorry for reducing my argument to menial words. You CAN NOT, physically incapable, stop people from doing these things… just as much as you can not physically stop gay couples from being together.

The issue here that makes the ‘gay rights’ argument more than just a set of sodomy laws is the fact that having a bunch of kinky toys doesn’t effect visitation rights, or wills, or taxes. So the real argument comes down to a few questions:

-Do you (or do you wish to) recognize non ‘male-female monogamous’ relationships as a binding relationship with familial-rights under the law?
-Do you (or do you wish to) recognize non ‘male-female monogamous’ relationships as a binding relationship with familial-recognition under the tax code?
-If yes to either, do you call this binding relationship Marriage or something else?

Argue about the specifics all you want, but these questions must be answered and solved in some way.

“The issue here is gay marriage, I have heard no one asking to legalize polygamy. But for the record, I would have no problem with this once they straighten up the laws surrounding it.”

Harry, I’m really happy to see someone posting that line of thinking. Rick Santorum used that argument against the gay right’s activists, and it didn’t go over well in most cases. I’m glad that you’re a rational supporter of gay marriage. I for one don’t care at all about the institution of marriage, but unfortunately it’s deeply rooted in the tax code, which I do care about, and various other programs which I’m forced to care about…

I’m actually somewhat surprised by the lack of support for Polygamy, in both directions. Historically speaking, it actually has a larger base than monogamy…

As far as legalizing gay marriage, once the tax and government side of it is updated to make sense (for example, a gay couple applying for medical help, because they can’t have a child), I’ll likely vote in favor… but for now I simply don’t care either way about the “marriage” part of it. Couples, and groups of people, will live together and be together regardless of the laws.

Unfortunately, libraries are shrinking more and more every passing year. I’m a night owl myself, so the early exams are brutal for me, half the time I just stay up all night instead of trying to sleep.

“Science deconstructs itself every generation or so as Einstein replaces Newton and is replaced in turn by Quantum Mechanics an “The God Particle”. One would think “the uncertainty principle” would clue folks like DEvon in on the LIMITS of both knowledge and the principles of “proof”.”

‘Deconstruct’ is a bit inaccurate, more like ‘evolves’ ^.^, and Quantum Mechanics is not a replacement for Einsteins theories of relativity. Relativity Physics and Quantum Physics originated around the same period, Quantum Theory came from Max Planck, and Einstein hated it because he didn’t think God “played dice with realty”. Einstein recognized that his theories weren’t complete, and he set out to develop the Unified Field Theory, which was meant to bring the two theories together, and be the ‘ultimate’ theory of everything. He died before he completed the theory.

So, the premise of your statement is totally spot on, just your facts were a bit off. Science is very limited, particularly by what we’re capable, and what we’re not capable of observing. And we’ve known since the very beginning of our use of Einstein’s theories that they aren’t totally correct. Scientists have been trying to bring Relativity and Quantum Mechanics together for a long time, because they’re both ‘wrong’… but they’re quite accurate when used within the boundaries of their limitations and they’re the best we have, so they work for now.

“Yep. When they’re complacently cordial with the usual “Thor” or “Zeus” shell games, they’re angry as wet hens. The list of unrelated and thoughtless sideswipes has become comically repetitive. It’s the quantity and not the quality that sets them below conjecture.”

I’m not talking about Norse or Greek mythology, I specifically called out Egyptian mythology, and there are countless others that draw remarkable parallels to the story of Jesus Christ, his birth, his miracles, his death, his resurrection (in 3 days). Historically speaking, the story of Christ is terribly over-used (particularly in pagan religions), but Christianity is, by far, the most successful rendition of it. There’s even a Jesus-like figure in the old testament, can you find it? Again, I encourage you to read into other stories, start with Horus, and don’t just read the Wikipedia article on it…

And I’m not angry, I responded with a hypothetical, and no one addressed it. I’ll have you know that I like Christ, I like Christianity, and I am not anti-religion at all. Nothing I say, and nor any “proof” I present can disprove the existence of God, nor will it disprove a whole faith. I’m merely presenting you with a logical reason why so many people reject religion, which leads to the statement: Most Atheists don’t care one bit about this tablet.

Why would this piss me (agnostic-Atheist, Right Winger) off? I could carve the story of Harry Potter into stone and bury it… 2000+ years pass, and someone un-buries it and presents it as proof of the existence of Witches and Wizards in their fight against Lord Voldimort.

I encourage you to read up on the worlds various different Mythologies, particularly Egyptian. You’ll find remarkable parallels between the story behind Jesus and other such offspring of gods.

But alas, NONE of this is disproof to the Christian faith… simply take it as it is: Skepticism, and a very logical reason for people to totally reject Jesus Christ and any other religious faith.

Agreed. I don’t like Obama, but he is the president of these United States. The death or injury of ANY president during his/her term is a serious situation, and can have important/critical consequences on everyone.

The hacking and joking post made by these hackers is deplorable. I can understand a joke, but hacking something like this puts you in the realm of Anonymous, whether the perpetrator was simply playing a joke, or they really wanted to cause havoc. I personally despise Anonymous, and anyone with their mentality.

On another note, I don’t use Twitter, or Facebook. The most connected I am to any social media comes from any online game I play… and these are obviously mostly limited to the subject matter of said game.

With that said, I find it pathetic that a site like Twitter commands such influence over market movements…

No, not this material specifically, but I have worked with iron dust in a lab setting. I might go ahead and make this just to be sure, but I’m almost 100% positive that it’s just a magnetic metal dust mixed with a viscus putty. Very, very simple to make, though pretty clever to try. Props to the people who made it… though I don’t really see a practical use seeing as the materials being swallowed are magnets…

Apart from their appearance, you can tell that they’re magnets because you see some dark ‘dust’ (iron/ferite) attached to them and sticking out slightly on a few of the clips. This is the metal de-bonding from the putty.

Exactly. I answered no to the polled question. While I could see myself generating a lot/all of my own energy in the distant future, I don’t think I would ever pull myself from the actual grid itself… simply because I want options.

I want a power line to my house, whether I use it or not.
I want a water line to my house, whether I use it or not.
I want a gas line to my house, whether I use it or not.
I want communication lines to my house, whether I use it or not.

I want to move forward, not revert back to old tech. Modular energy is part of the solution, but centralized/regional power generating stations are still more efficient.

I saw this a few days back. I see one person standing near the edge of the dock with a light shirt. Another person bending over with a dark shirt, over a third, unidentifiable mass. Could be a person, or an animal… don’t know.

Look at the shadows cast by the two standing people. It’ll help you get perspective.

“Is anybody but me upset that the Nanny State government is inserting themselves into his private life and trying to tell him how to raise his kids? It’s government overreach. This government interference with a parents ability to discipline their kids is exactly what happened in Germany when Hitler rose to power. And we all know how that turned out.”

I wholeheartedly agree that “your house is your castle”… in this case, the incident was made public, and is subject to public scrutiny. Whether it’s abuse or not depends on whether his response is premeditated and planned. Yeah, he was angry and rightfully so, that doesn’t make an abuse case. What matters is whether he made the conscious decision to physically punish the girls until a stopping point, or if he was in a fit of blind rage. A whip/cord can cause lacerations and bruises, which isn’t ‘real’ damage… especially if it’s focused on the upper legs… but the video isn’t playing anymore, so I can’t comment on what actually occurred in the video.

So, philosophically, I agree with you Meteors… but if the video is out, then it’s not overreach. Someone involved is complaining, and it’s not unreasonable for authorities to at least look into it.

There’s also the issue of peripheral air disturbance. Hovercrafts cause drafts, whereas Carts don’t… I don’t play golf… but wouldn’t a hovercraft be much more disturbing to a ball on the ground than a wheeled vehicle?

The oversight and decision to purchase is ultimately the parents’ right. While the sexualization of young girls is morally deplorable, the images I saw were not pornographic. This is a product of free markets, so either get over it, or complain to Victoria’s Secret directly. Bringing laws and legislation into the argument is totally hypocritical. This IS legal, but Victoria’s Secret must accept the consequences of it’s young marketing.

In other words, by right (natural/God given), you CANNOT tell people what they can and cannot buy with their money. If you try through coercion, or anything other than persuasion, you are no better than our current government.

No kidding, I’m actually quite angry at most of those people. It would have taken me a few moments to realize what was going on, then I would:

A) If armed, draw and order them to stand down with a single warning
B) Use deadly force to remove the strangler with zero regard to the stranglers well-being

This would not have been funny if they had chosen the wrong location to do it… With a gun, you have the fear factor, and thus the ability to save both of their lives. Without a gun, I would have been forced to intervene with as much force as I can possibly apply, with the full intent to kill, but stopping once incapacitated.

The reason to apply full, deadly force if I didn’t have a gun? I don’t know what the strangler is capable of. With a gun, I can simply point and shoot, I have options. Without a gun, I must win the fight immediately, or risk losing my own life as well. As other commenters have said, a hard kick in the face would have ended it pretty quick… And I always carry a large Swiss army “tool” with a screwdriver, pliers, “package opening edge”, etc…